Re: [rtcweb] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 05/08/15 14:22, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
>> (2) WebRTC does not require STUN or TURN servers for some calls,
>> even if it does for many. Why is it ok to require such a server be
>> present in all calls (which I think this means) espcially when that
>> means exposing additional meta-data (calling parties in a case
>> where the servers weren't needed and call duration in all cases) to
>> those servers when that is not always necessary?
> 
> Could you please refer to the text which you think mandates STUN or
> TURN servers?

Sure, I think there were a couple of places, but I'd have to
track 'em down. I'll try update the ballot with that if it
turns out to be needed. (Be tomorrow before I get to that,
sorry.)

> 
> If there are no NATs, the STUN requests can be sent between the
> endpoints, without STUN or TURN servers.

Really - so browsers will be able to act like a STUN server or
something? I didn't know that. Where's that described?

S.


> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
>